Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Big Win for Climate Scientist

A defamation lawsuit filed by a high-profile climate scientist will be allowed to proceed, an appeals court ruled on Thursday.

The case is being brought by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, who is perhaps best known for helping develop the famous “hockey stick” graph used to illustrate global warming. Mann is suing two bloggers who accused him of scientific and academic misconduct in 2012. On Thursday, the D.C. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Mann has the right to proceed with the lawsuit.

“Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice,” wrote Senior Judge Vanessa Ruiz in the court’s opinion.

The decision suggests that, even as the climate-skeptical Trump administration comes into office, a high profile lawsuit could be underway in Washington, D.C., that also partly turns on the evidence for, and against, climate change.

The origins of the lawsuit

Mann and several other colleagues first published the hockey stick graph in the late 1990s, and it has since become one of the most recognizable visual illustrations of human-caused–or anthropogenic–climate change. The graph used temperature data acquired from a variety of sources including tree rings, coral samples and ancient sediments to depicts a sharp uptick in global temperatures in the 20th century in comparison with prior centuries. Scientists attribute the rise to a spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations brought on by human industrial activities. (Here’s one depiction presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)

“Tarnishing the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side may be a tactic to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming,” wrote Senior Judge Vanessa Ruiz in the court’s opinion. “That the challenged statements were made as part of such debate provides important context and requires careful parsing in light of constitutional standards. But if the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.”

This distinction has been pointed out by other climate scientists following the case as well. In a series of tweets on Thursday, NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt called the ruling “nuanced” and “well argued.”

“Judges make clear that there is a large constitutional gap btw criticism of scientific conclusions or methodology… & allegations of misconduct and fraud,” he tweeted.

That said, the court of appeals has only ruled that the case may proceed to trial. From there, a jury will decide whether the content of the blog posts actually constitutes defamation — and because Mann is considered a “limited public figure” in this case, the decision could hinge on whether the jury finds that the defendants acted with “actual malice.”

In a recent blog post, defendant Mark Steyn expressed his disagreement with the ruling.

“The ‘sufficient evidence’ Dr Mann has supplied are a series of mendacious claims to have been ‘investigated‘ and ‘exonerated‘ by multipleAnglo-American bodies that did, in fact, do neither,” he wrote (his links).

Re: Big Win for Climate Scientist

"Various studies have debunked the idea of a pause, or hiatus, in global warming—the contention that global surface temperatures stopped rising during the first decade of this century. The arguments for and against “the pause” were somewhat muted until June 2015, when scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a paper in Science saying that it had slightly revised the sea surface temperatures it had been citing for the 1900s. The measurement methods, based on sensors in the engine intake ports of ships, had been flawed, NOAA said. The revised methodology also meant that sea surface temperatures during the 2000s had been slightly higher than reported. NOAA adjusted both records, which led to a conclusion that global surface temperatures during the 2000s were indeed higher than they had been in previous decades. No hiatus.

Critics attacked NOAA, claiming it had cooked the books to dismiss claims of a pause. Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas opened a congressional investigation of NOAA scientists, including demands that they turn over their emails, which they have not.

Now independent scientists have weighed in. A study published Wednesday in Science Advances shows that the adjustments NOAA made were justified. A team led by Zeke Hausfather at the University of California at Berkeley and Kevin Cowtan at the University of York analyzed raw data from buoys, satellites and robotic sensors around the world’s oceans. They concluded that the old methods had indeed overestimated sea surface temperatures in the past—but that the newer calculations had underestimated temperatures for the 2000s.

Hausfather and Cowtan explain their review in a guest blog Wednesday on Scientific American’s Website, and make a case for why such investigations should be done by independent scientists, not politicians. Hausfather also describes the details of his team’s analysis in a clear and interesting video, below.

“The bottom line,” Hausfather says, “is that NOAA got it right. They were not manipulating the data for any political purpose. Warming has continued.”"

Re: Big Win for Climate Scientist

"Various studies have debunked the idea of a pause, or hiatus, in global warming—the contention that global surface temperatures stopped rising during the first decade of this century. The arguments for and against “the pause” were somewhat muted until June 2015, when scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a paper in Science saying that it had slightly revised the sea surface temperatures it had been citing for the 1900s. The measurement methods, based on sensors in the engine intake ports of ships, had been flawed, NOAA said. The revised methodology also meant that sea surface temperatures during the 2000s had been slightly higher than reported. NOAA adjusted both records, which led to a conclusion that global surface temperatures during the 2000s were indeed higher than they had been in previous decades. No hiatus.

Critics attacked NOAA, claiming it had cooked the books to dismiss claims of a pause. Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas opened a congressional investigation of NOAA scientists, including demands that they turn over their emails, which they have not.

Now independent scientists have weighed in. A study published Wednesday in Science Advances shows that the adjustments NOAA made were justified. A team led by Zeke Hausfather at the University of California at Berkeley and Kevin Cowtan at the University of York analyzed raw data from buoys, satellites and robotic sensors around the world’s oceans. They concluded that the old methods had indeed overestimated sea surface temperatures in the past—but that the newer calculations had underestimated temperatures for the 2000s.

Hausfather and Cowtan explain their review in a guest blog Wednesday on Scientific American’s Website, and make a case for why such investigations should be done by independent scientists, not politicians. Hausfather also describes the details of his team’s analysis in a clear and interesting video, below.

“The bottom line,” Hausfather says, “is that NOAA got it right. They were not manipulating the data for any political purpose. Warming has continued.”"

We are finally acknowledging that the sun is actually in control of our weather. As it puts out more or less energy, so the earth gets warmer or cooler. The moon also has a major affect on weather. As it's orbit has changed, so has it affects on earth.

Currently, "we" are focused on how to tax oil or natural gas (cap and trade), and use the proceeds to hopefully offset the carbon we are adding to the atmosphere. This will enrich some people, but do little to solve anything.
If the coal electricity plant near here pays one of our local dams to buy their "carbon credits", nothing changed but the dam made some more money (and the people that arranged the trade). The coal plant still belches all sorts of gases, just as it did before the trade.

Heat is an energy source and could be utilized. We put countless billions of btu's of heat into the atmosphere when you heat your house/factory/office bldg (but nobody is worried that may have an effect on climate). That doesn't matter (to climate change) because you can't tax it. Iceland has deciduous trees under miles of ice. This is a dynamic planet. The Atlantic coast off New York has been many miles out farther at times. It just isn't realistic to not expect change.

We have the technology to make deserts green (again, as they have been in the past). Less ice at the poles may not be the worst thing that can happen. We should not forget the past. Good intentions sometimes kill people.

"CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article inaccurately stated that scientists have predicted bitterly cold winters in the 2030s, "similar to freezing conditions of the late 17th century". In fact, the research focused solely on solar activity, and did not made any prediction about its possible future climate effects. We are happy to make this clear." (your source, emphasis mine)

Re: Big Win for Climate Scientist

Originally Posted by CowboyX

Where did you hear about "the coming "mini ice age""?

"CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article inaccurately stated that scientists have predicted bitterly cold winters in the 2030s, "similar to freezing conditions of the late 17th century". In fact, the research focused solely on solar activity, and did not made any prediction about its possible future climate effects. We are happy to make this clear." (your source, emphasis mine)

I have heard it form several sources. Here they discuss the difficulties faced when trying to predict climate. It also discusses sunspots and their affects on climate. It calls into question predicting "global warming" and an "ice age".
Though they do say, "an ice age is almost certainly in our planets future. but it's a question of when". (They do state that this could be thousands of years)

prediction/http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/futureclimate/

A new study from Lund University, published in Nature Geoscience
“The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change. It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level.

In a scientific paper published in St. Petersburg last November. Abdussamotiv predicted that “after the maximum of solar Cycle-24, from approximately 2014, we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cooling cycle with a little Ice Age in 2055 plus or minus 14 years.” He believes a global freeze “will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/new-data-...OuPsJwzVJq2.99

A new model that predicts the solar cycles more accurately than ever before has suggested that solar magnetic activity will drop by 60 percent between 2030 and 2040, which means in just 15 years’ time, Earth could sink into what researchers are calling a mini ice age.

Such low solar activity has not been seen since the last mini ice age, called the Maunder Minimum, which plunged the northern hemisphere in particular into a series of bitterly cold winters between 1645 and 1715.http://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-i...-next-15-years.

While I am not advocating a near term imminent ice age, I do acknowledge the enormity of the problem of predicting what is going to happen in the future. I simply don't think that climate science is exact enough to warrant drastic action. I also see the huge $$'s involved in these cap and trade schemes and see potential for massive corruption, so I question the motives.
You see, I live in the pacific northwest where spotted owls and salmon rule. Problem is, a lot of what's going on in the name of salmon, has little to do with fish (IMHO).

Re: Big Win for Climate Scientist

Originally Posted by Belthazor

l.

In a scientific paper published in St. Petersburg last November. Abdussamotiv predicted that “after the maximum of solar Cycle-24, from approximately 2014, we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cooling cycle with a little Ice Age in 2055 plus or minus 14 years.” He believes a global freeze “will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/new-data-...OuPsJwzVJq2.99

I also see the huge $$'s involved in these cap and trade schemes and see potential for massive corruption, so I question the motives.

Your "scientific paper" was produced by a group headed by Christopher Monkton. See post 3 for the ridicule heaped upon him and his methods. Perhaps you should questions his motives as well.

"in a review global climate published during the DEP's
4:40the most recent deep solar minimum nasa scientists outlined the possible fax
4:45over continued loll in the sunspot cycle
4:49up let's assume year old
4:52that the solar radiance does not recover in that case
4:57the negative forcing relative to the mean solar irradiance
5:00is equivalent to seven years see you to increase
5:03current growth rates so do not look for a new
5:08Little Ice Age in other words"

"6:03the bottom line is it will not upset the climate warming
6:06we're causing to greenhouse gas emissions"

Again, look who they trotted out to pervert the case and what the actual scientists say.

You source also concludes with something else already debunked:

"Analysis of ice cores shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows the rise temperatures very closely and lagged warmings by 800±400 years. During the glacial/interglacial cycles the peaks of carbon dioxide concentration have never preceded the warmings. Therefore there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is a major factor in the warming of the Earth now. Considerable changes of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide always determined by corresponding temperature fluctuations of the World Ocean."

"NASA and others work to understand how such a relatively weak forcing could
5:47cause the kind of major global changes that would produce large planetary
5:51effects they understood that other factors were at work to amplify small
5:56changes for instance increases in snow and ice cover
6:00increase the reflection of heat amplifying a week
6:03orbital cooling but how could change is taking place primarily in the northern
6:09hemisphere be spread over the whole planet
6:12the missing link they said was the increased warming of water and soils
6:16releasing greenhouse gases co2 and methane hansen and his group wrote in
6:221990 changes in co2 and methane content have played a significant part in the
6:28Glacial interglacial climate changes by amplifying the relatively weak orbital
6:33forcing and by constituting a link between northern and southern hemisphere
6:37climates to prove the truth of the sequence of changes"

Re: Big Win for Climate Scientist

Originally Posted by CowboyX

Where did you hear about "the coming "mini ice age""?

"CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article inaccurately stated that scientists have predicted bitterly cold winters in the 2030s, "similar to freezing conditions of the late 17th century". In fact, the research focused solely on solar activity, and did not made any prediction about its possible future climate effects. We are happy to make this clear." (your source, emphasis mine)

I don't believe I said they were discussing climate. They were discussing the sun and it's affects on earth:

[In the cycle between 2030 and around 2040] the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the sun," she said.

"Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

"We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum'".

Maunder minimum, indicating low sunspot activity, was the name given to the period between 1645 and 1715, when Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.

So the last time we had a "Maunder minimum" it appears to have affected weather on earth a great deal. Seems reasonable that it would hold this time as well, but we will see.

They also state:

"They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time.

"Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent.

"Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity.

"When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."

Re: Big Win for Climate Scientist

Breaking story coming from a well respected scientist at NOAA who claims that NOAA used unreliable data that was later discarded in order to rush this study out for the Paris talks. He notes that NOAA violated its own review procedures and exaggerated the model in order to remove the pause.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

Re: Big Win for Climate Scientist

"We can’t pin the Little Ice Age entirely on the Maunder Minimum, though, since volcanic eruptions appear to have kicked things off centuries earlier. It’s now believed that the Maunder Minimum played a minor role at best in sustaining the chill"

"Newly precise measurements confirm that the total solar energy reaching Earth actually doesn’t change all that much from cycle to cycle. As a single cycle ramps up from minimum to maximum, the sun spits out as much as 10 times more energy in extreme ultraviolet wavelengths. However, the sun’s total energy output (irradiance) goes up by a mere 0.1% during a solar cycle, and this boosts global surface temperature by no more than 0.1°C per cycle, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Re: Big Win for Climate Scientist

Alas, we can both tote out "scientific studies" on both sides of this controversy. Reality is, if you allow me to paraphrase the climate alarmist side:
"until we can figure in the flapping wings of a butterfly if Africa's affect on north America, we won't be able to predict the weather more than a day or so out". But weather trends are easier to predict. This is probably so, but no one knows. The east coast used to be many miles farther out than new york at one time. Do we really want ice sheets from Alaska to Texas again? Geology (IMHO) has been the least affected science field by politics I think. See what that field has to say.

Ice ages have always come and gone. When I was 17 we were "heading into an ice age". That is all I heard in high school. Now we are going to die of heat. You know what.

We were going to die of:

ice age, then aids, then Y2K, then mad cow, bird flu, etc etc....

Sorry for the ramble, but my point still stands,
the last word is yours...